A New Fetish - The Constitution

[roughdraft274]

I agree that it won't turn any politician honest just by reciting it, but then that's true of religious text. I guess I'm just puzzled by the Dems railing against reading the Constitution as if it's the Satanic Bible. Seems like the better move would be to make a big show of embracing it. Otherwise, they're just giving the right the ammunition to say, "See?! They don't even want to hear it being read."

It's politics. The republicans came up with the idea therefor democrats have to make fun of it. If the Democrats had started this you'd be hearing thread after thread and countless conservative pundits whine about how democrats really hate the constitution and it's a waste of time and such. Sad but true. Tons of mindless ****nuts on each side already make up their minds on these issues without the slightest bit of detail.

 

[haymarket]

I guess I'm a little bit surprised that some are so open in their contempt for the Constitution.

What contempt for the Constitution? I have never seen any evidence of that.

The contempt seems to be for those who would misuse and twist the Constitution to their own partisan ideology and purposes.

You confuse the two and I wonder why you would do that?

 

[X Factor]

What contempt for the Constitution? I have never seen any evidence of that.

The contempt seems to be for those who would misuse and twist the Constitution to their own partisan ideology and purposes.

You confuse the two and I wonder why you would do that?

Haymarket, I'm talking about the language being used now that people are "Constitution Lovers" and have a "Constitution fetish" as if being a proponent of the Constitution is somehow wrong or even...well...kinky. That indicates to me, contempt for the actual document.

 

[ptif219]

Why don't they recite their oath instead?

They did but it seems they are not abiding by it

 

[Kal'Stang]

Haymarket, I'm talking about the language being used now that people are "Constitution Lovers" and have a "Constitution fetish" as if being a proponent of the Constitution is somehow wrong or even...well...kinky. That indicates to me, contempt for the actual document.

Does the same to me.

 

[spud_meister]

Never mind just realized you aren't even from the US.

:lol::lol::lol::blah:

 

[Fiddytree]

I seems now left wing pundits on the left have a new speaking point. If you respect the Constitution, want it read outloud and want legislatures to cite the Constitutional basis for their proposed legislation, you have a Constitutional fetish.

The GOP’s Constitutional fetish | The Periscope Post
The Mahablog » More on the Constitution Fetish
How the Tea Party's fetish for the Constitution as written may get it in trouble. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine


Damn straight.

It is amusing with what rapid speed political commentators, journalists, essayists, and bloggers latch onto a catchphrase, isn't it?

At least with the Slate article I started reading, the word "fetish" is used with regard with cherry picking. It is a somewhat valid point, nevertheless, the point was nearly shattered when I then read:
"And unless Tea Party Republicans are willing to stand proud and announce that they adore and revere the whole Constitution as written, except for the First, 14, 16th, and 17th amendments, which totally blow, they should admit right now that they are in the same conundrum as everyone else: This document no more commands the specific policies they espouse than it commands the specific policies their opponents support."

What an awful way of describing and analyzing a political movement for an essay.

Then for the blog, why pollute your message with more silly ideas? "Update: Big, honking, neon-lit proof of the authoritarian nature of conservatism — some blogger thinks my remarks about constitutional fetishism are treason." Because some yahoo on the internet exaggerates the nature of the disagreement with said blogger, the 'authoritarian nature' of conservatism is shown? For anytime a joker calls treason, every political impulse would be labeled as such.

The media mourns the selectivity of the document, but is only selectively outraged by the Constitution in the hands of conservatives. It is certainly true that it is easy to select what one likes about the Constitution and politely ignore that which you do not. It is easy to find that in a number of texts, be they documents for governance or not (The Bible and Tocqueville are frequent targets in this regard). It does not negate the usefulness of the document itself, which is frequently implied when liberals find something either antique or possibly contrarian to their views. I found it political pandering to read the document in Congress, but I also found it useful for leaders to feel that responsibility, and for the public to feel even more respect for the hard work and political wisdom in such a document.

 

[Z3n]

I think after the incoming Republican class reads the constitution to all of the mainstream left serving currently they should all get into a jet, fly to Gitmo, and read all of the "enemy combatants" that stupid part about habeas corpus, fair trail by an impartial jury of peers etc to people who continue to be detained.It's a two way street folks. :2wave:

Also: Is Iraq constitutional?

 

[Fiddytree]

I've read it, it's not Beowulf.

Beowulf was still a fascinating read. So, yes, sign me up for loving to hear it being read.

 

[Fiddytree]

The fact is the Constitution is a legal document, it's not some mystical, magical talisman of power that fights corruption in it's time off from curing small children of cancer.

Always remember that it is more than just a legal document governing our system. To our people, it has represented the best of what has come in governance, and has served us well. To Americans, political philosophy need merely be slightly modified after looking at this document and the ones preceding it.

 

[haymarket]

Haymarket, I'm talking about the language being used now that people are "Constitution Lovers" and have a "Constitution fetish" as if being a proponent of the Constitution is somehow wrong or even...well...kinky. That indicates to me, contempt for the actual document.

I have yet to see any language that shows outright contempt for the Constitution as opposed to having contempt for the Republicans who are trying to capture the Constitution for their own partisan purposes.

 

[Cameron]

I get it. Republicans want to demonstrate to the American people that the government has been acting beyond its means, and demonstrate their commitment to changing that. But the Constitution has been subject to both a conservative and liberal reading since basically its creation. It's susceptible to both, and with good reason - both small and big-government individuals worked together to create it. These new rules seem like an attempt to seize the Constitution for conservatives and make out Democrats as politicians who have been ignoring and dismissive of the founding document. That's sleazy and partisan. I'd rather have politicians who see the obvious positives and minuses of both sides and try to find something in the middle, rather than simply attempt to characterize the other side as Unamerican in an attempt to . . . do what exactly? How does that help get anything done?

 

[American]

No, not respecting the constitution, and I'd appreciate not putting words in my mouth which would be much easier for you if you had actually read my post. All of the silly little things the republicans are aiming at like reading it aloud to start off the new congress and forcing all legislation to explain where it is prohibited in the constitution are meaningless symbolism (that's even been admitted to by some conservatives) much like them offering up the repeal obamacare bill that doesn't have a chance of passing. Meaningless symbolism.

I like it, and want them to proceed. They should be forced to read the Constitution once ever six months. In fact they should have to take a class on it. They should have to read the Federalist and be tested on it.

 

[X Factor]

I have yet to see any language that shows outright contempt for the Constitution as opposed to having contempt for the Republicans who are trying to capture the Constitution for their own partisan purposes.

Haymarket, I explained it to. You seem to be the only one who doesn't get it.

 

[X Factor]

It is amusing with what rapid speed political commentators, journalists, essayists, and bloggers latch onto a catchphrase, isn't it?

At least with the Slate article I started reading, the word "fetish" is used with regard with cherry picking. It is a somewhat valid point, nevertheless, the point was nearly shattered when I then read:
"And unless Tea Party Republicans are willing to stand proud and announce that they adore and revere the whole Constitution as written, except for the First, 14, 16th, and 17th amendments, which totally blow, they should admit right now that they are in the same conundrum as everyone else: This document no more commands the specific policies they espouse than it commands the specific policies their opponents support."

What an awful way of describing and analyzing a political movement for an essay.

Then for the blog, why pollute your message with more silly ideas? "Update: Big, honking, neon-lit proof of the authoritarian nature of conservatism — some blogger thinks my remarks about constitutional fetishism are treason." Because some yahoo on the internet exaggerates the nature of the disagreement with said blogger, the 'authoritarian nature' of conservatism is shown? For anytime a joker calls treason, every political impulse would be labeled as such.

The media mourns the selectivity of the document, but is only selectively outraged by the Constitution in the hands of conservatives. It is certainly true that it is easy to select what one likes about the Constitution and politely ignore that which you do not. It is easy to find that in a number of texts, be they documents for governance or not (The Bible and Tocqueville are frequent targets in this regard). It does not negate the usefulness of the document itself, which is frequently implied when liberals find something either antique or possibly contrarian to their views. I found it political pandering to read the document in Congress, but I also found it useful for leaders to feel that responsibility, and for the public to feel even more respect for the hard work and political wisdom in such a document.

This is an excellent analysis, Fiddytree.

 

[X Factor]

I think after the incoming Republican class reads the constitution to all of the mainstream left serving currently they should all get into a jet, fly to Gitmo, and read all of the "enemy combatants" that stupid part about habeas corpus, fair trail by an impartial jury of peers etc to people who continue to be detained.It's a two way street folks. :2wave:

Also: Is Iraq constitutional?

Hey, Zen. Where you been? Is Iraq constitutional? Does our government have the constitutional authority to go to war? Yes.

 

[Whovian]

I have yet to see any language that shows outright contempt for the Constitution as opposed to having contempt for the Republicans who are trying to capture the Constitution for their own partisan purposes.

Republicans bad... Democrats good.

We know, we know

 

[Barbbtx]

I agree that it won't turn any politician honest just by reciting it, but then that's true of religious text. I guess I'm just puzzled by the Dems railing against reading the Constitution as if it's the Satanic Bible. Seems like the better move would be to make a big show of embracing it. Otherwise, they're just giving the right the ammunition to say, "See?! They don't even want to hear it being read."

Anyone remember this? Luckily it got nipped in the bud before it became common place. Just sad, I say to have the Constitution being treated as something that needs a warning lable.



Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution - FoxNews.com
“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

 

[X Factor]

I get it. Republicans want to demonstrate to the American people that the government has been acting beyond its means, and demonstrate their commitment to changing that. But the Constitution has been subject to both a conservative and liberal reading since basically its creation. It's susceptible to both, and with good reason - both small and big-government individuals worked together to create it. These new rules seem like an attempt to seize the Constitution for conservatives and make out Democrats as politicians who have been ignoring and dismissive of the founding document. That's sleazy and partisan.

It's "sleazy and partisan" to try to remind everybody that our governing document is actually about limiting government? Not at all. If the GOP is able to "seize the Constitution" it's because the Dems have willingly pushed it into our hands.

I'd rather have politicians who see the obvious positives and minuses of both sides and try to find something in the middle, rather than simply attempt to characterize the other side as Unamerican in an attempt to . . . do what exactly? How does that help get anything done?

Get used to the "gridlock". The people who voted the GOP back into office are not interested in meeting in the middle. The GOP reps were not elected to get along, they were elected to halt Obama's agenda and even turn it back if they can.

 

[X Factor]

Anyone remember this? Luckily it got nipped in the bud before it became common place. Just sad, I say to have the Constitution being treated as something that needs a warning lable.

Well heck Barb, the Constitution is a fetish now, so of course it needs a warning lable.

 

[Barbbtx]

I like it, and want them to proceed. They should be forced to read the Constitution once ever six months. In fact they should have to take a class on it. They should have to read the Federalist and be tested on it.

You're wish is partially granted kind sir.

Bachmann: We're going to do what the NFL does and what the baseball teams do: we're going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Justice Scalia has graciously agreed to kick off our class. The hour before we cast our first vote in congress, we'll meet in the Capitol, we'll have a seminar on some segment of the Constitution, we'll have a speaker, we'll have questions and answers, we'll wrap our minds around this magnificent document [and] that'll set the tone for the week while we're in Washington.
I think it's great and I'm hoping all the members of Congress will partake; it's bipartisan.
http://gawker.com/5713438/justice-scalia-will-teach-tea-partys-constitution-class

 

[Barbbtx]

I like it, and want them to proceed. They should be forced to read the Constitution once ever six months. In fact they should have to take a class on it. They should have to read the Federalist and be tested on it.

You're wish is partially granted kind sir.

Bachmann: We're going to do what the NFL does and what the baseball teams do: we're going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Justice Scalia has graciously agreed to kick off our class. The hour before we cast our first vote in congress, we'll meet in the Capitol, we'll have a seminar on some segment of the Constitution, we'll have a speaker, we'll have questions and answers, we'll wrap our minds around this magnificent document [and] that'll set the tone for the week while we're in Washington.
I think it's great and I'm hoping all the members of Congress will partake; it's bipartisan.
Justice Scalia Will Teach Tea Party's Constitution Class

 

[Cameron]

You're wish is partially granted kind sir.

Bachmann: We're going to do what the NFL does and what the baseball teams do: we're going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Justice Scalia has graciously agreed to kick off our class. The hour before we cast our first vote in congress, we'll meet in the Capitol, we'll have a seminar on some segment of the Constitution, we'll have a speaker, we'll have questions and answers, we'll wrap our minds around this magnificent document [and] that'll set the tone for the week while we're in Washington.
I think it's great and I'm hoping all the members of Congress will partake; it's bipartisan.
Justice Scalia Will Teach Tea Party's Constitution Class

Bipartisan in the sense that anyone can attend, or in the sense that some effort will be made to present all sides of debate? If the guest speakers are all in the same line as Scalia I'm not sure these sessions can be accurately classified as bipartisan. But if there are a variety of speakers of different viewpoints I think it might be a great idea.

 

[cpwill]

It's "sleazy and partisan" to try to remind everybody that our governing document is actually about limiting government? Not at all. If the GOP is able to "seize the Constitution" it's because the Dems have willingly pushed it into our hands.

bingo. if the Constitution can be used as a "partisan weapon" against you, then you deserve it.

Get used to the "gridlock". The people who voted the GOP back into office are not interested in meeting in the middle. The GOP reps were not elected to get along, they were elected to halt Obama's agenda and even turn it back if they can.

i belive Kraughthammer said it wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.

 

[X Factor]

bingo. if the Constitution can be used as a "partisan weapon" against you, then you deserve it.

Same with the flag.

i belive Kraughthammer said it wasn't an election so much as a restraining order.

LOL